 Good evening, depending on where you're viewing today's live stream. Welcome to our event today on the path to intra-Afghan talks, ending our endless war in Afghanistan. My name is Andrew Wilder and I'm the Vice President of the Asia Center at the U.S. Institute of Peace. I know there are many viewers joining us from around the world and some good friends of USIP, including Afghanistan's Ambassador to the U.S. Ambassador Roya Rahmani. We're delighted to have you all join us today for this timely and important discussion. We are particularly honored that Minister Stanekzai and Minister Sirabi have taken time out of their very busy schedules to join us from Kabul. But I would also like to thank Ambassador Rick Olson, who will be moderating today's discussion, and an old friend of USIP, Alex Thier, for participating in today's event. We hear Minister Stanekzai may be running a little late as she has a meeting with the President, but we'll hope you'll be able to join us shortly. We also hope you'll take part in this event by asking a question through the YouTube live stream and the comment section. And you can engage with us and each other on Twitter with today's hashtag. That's hashtag Afghan peace. And once again, hashtag Afghan peace. So please join us through that and ask questions if you'd like. As many of you know USIP was founded by the US Congress 35 years ago as an independent nonpartisan national institute charged with the vital mission of preventing mitigating and resolving violent conflict. USIP has been involved in Afghanistan since 2002. We've had a field office in Kabul since 2008. The top priority of USIP Afghanistan program is supporting a sustainable and inclusive peace process in Afghanistan to both top down and bottom up efforts. We convene key stakeholders for public and private discussions and dialogues on how to resolve the near two decades long conflict. We also conduct and support extensive research and analysis on relevant subjects, much of which you can access from USIP website. Through our field office in Kabul USIP is heavily engaged at the grassroots level as well. Our provincial peace dialogues bring together women, youth and elders to help ensure their voices are heard in the peace process, and that they have a say in the future of their country. We support a peace education program that equips university students across the country with the skills and resources to build peace in their communities and become the next generation of Afghan peace builders. Like all of us participating virtually in today's discussion USIP has had to adapt to the rapidly changing and uncertain environment caused by the global coronavirus pandemic. I'm going to virtual events like this is one of the adaptations and I wanted to thank the more than 700 individuals who registered to participate in today's event. I think we're all still grappling with trying to understand the long term impact and implications of the pandemic here in the US, also in Afghanistan and also globally. In terms of today's discussion, I think we're all wondering in particular how the already very challenging peace process will be affected by the pandemic. I can only hope that the devastating impact the pandemic is likely to have on the lives and livelihoods of Afghans, the poor and vulnerable in particular, will convince the leaders of the parties the conflict to stop prioritizing killing and to focus their energies instead on making peace, working together to save the lives of so many of their fellow countrymen and women. Unfortunately today's news from Afghanistan and yet more Taliban attacks against Afghan security forces isn't encouraging in this regard. Nearly two months have gone by since the US Taliban agreement was signed on February 29 and Doha, which was supposed to then lead to intra-Afghan negotiations on March 10. Currently ongoing political disagreements, the debate over prisoner exchanges and continued high rates of violence have caused delays and roadblocks to getting to intra-Afghan negotiations, which are the critical next phase in the peace process. However, one significant area of progress was the announcement on March 26 of an inclusive Islamic Republic of Afghanistan negotiating team. We are honored to have two distinguished members of the negotiating team with us today, including its head, to discuss how they are dealing with the recent developments and challenges of getting to negotiations, their preparations for the talks, and how the country can move closer to a political settlement to end over four decades of continuous violence. But first, it's my pleasure to introduce the moderator of the discussion, Ambassador Richard Olson. Over the past year, Ambassador Olson has been a senior advisor to our team at USIP. He was previously the US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and prior to that the US Ambassador to Pakistan. Through these posts and many others throughout his distinguished career, he has become very familiar with Afghanistan, its neighbors, and the complexities of the Afghanistan peace process. And with that, I'd like to turn to Ambassador Olson to moderate today's panel discussion. Thank you. Thank you Andrew for that very kind introduction and good morning everyone. What I'd like to do is briefly sketch out where we are in terms of the Afghan negotiations. And then we will move quickly on to the panelists. As Andrew mentioned, on the 29th of February, the United States and Taliban concluded a deal after nearly 18 months of negotiations, led on the US side by Ambassador Zalmay Halilzad. The key elements included a phased US withdrawal, Taliban assurances on with regard to terrorism on Afghan territory. And most importantly, a call for beginning of the intra-Afghan negotiations, which were to have begun according to the agreement on the 10th of March. And finally, the agreement called for prisoner releases as a confidence building measure before negotiations were to begin. Several of the prisoner releases have happened, including I understand today. Both sides have expressed some degree of disappointment with the quantity of prisoners released and perhaps you could say the quality in terms of the individuals. Maybe this is a negotiating tactic we'll have to hear from our panelists about that. The Afghan negotiations are central to bringing about an end to what has been, as Andrew mentioned, a four decade long war in Afghanistan. We think of in the United States, we think of it as an endless war after 20 years for Afghans war has gone on twice as long. But the issues to be addressed in this peace process include, although they're not limited to a ceasefire, power sharing arrangements, whether Afghanistan needs to amend its constitution. The important issue of rights of women and minorities. And above all others, whether Afghanistan continues to be an Islamic Republic as it has been since 2001, or as the Taliban demands, it reverts to being an Islamic Emirate. Against this backdrop, there are two sets of issues that even further complicate what is already a difficult perspective set of negotiations. First is the ongoing political dispute between Ashraf Ghani and Dr Abdullah over who won last summer's presidential election. And as you will know that note that we're competing presidential election presidential inauguration recently. Despite an unsuccessful late March intervention by US Secretary of State Mark Pompeo, which resulted in a punitive cut of a billion US dollars in security assistance to Afghanistan, which is about a fifth of the total amount. Withoutwithstanding this dispute, the government of Afghanistan recently has announced a creation of a joint negotiating team supported by both sides both parties to dispute. But the second complicating factor is Andrew mentioned also is the onset of the COVID pandemic, to which Afghanistan is particularly vulnerable. Afghanistan is a neighbor of Iran, one of the early hotspots and from which the virus appears to have arrived. And it has a very well weak health system as one would expect one of the poorest countries in the world. This makes the start of negotiations considerably more difficult as travel and face to face meetings are virtually impossible. This has also stopped our parapetetic special envoy, they'll may a whole is that from traveling to Kabul to facilitate the prisoner exchanges. There have reportedly been some negotiations over the prisoner issue by Skype. To be realistic, one may hope that the common danger of the pandemic may bring the sides closer together. It certainly did help to facilitate the prisoner release, which was built in part as a humanitarian gesture. Finally, and sadly, the fighting goes on. And I think all of us are looking to see whether the Taliban will begin its traditional spring offensive. But in any case, I think this will add to the urgency of the situation in Afghanistan. So to cut through this complex knot of issues, we have a superb panel. I'd like to do some brief introductions for who we're going to be hearing from. What First Minister Masoum Stanix I who leads the Republic's negotiating team. He has a long and distinguished career in the Afghan government who is the chief national director of security. He is a security advisor to President Karzai, as well as having held previous minister ministerial position so note that on a personal level he is a survivor of the Taliban suicide bombing. And he has been a peace warrior for a long time before it was currently fashionable in in this town. Habiba Serabi is a member of the Republic's negotiating team, deputy chair of the high peace council, and an advisor to chief executive officer of Afghanistan on women and youth affairs she also served as the governor of Bamiyan province. And has served as minister women if women's affairs well as minister of culture and education she is one of the foremost proponents of women's and minority rights stemming from her own personal experience under the Taliban regime. Finally, Alex there has been working on Afghanistan since 1993 and many capacities. He is currently a senior advisor or to the Center for strategic and international studies and founder and CEO of triple helix helix LLC, and had a career that included important positions at US agency for international development. And he has been a long standing friend of US IP formerly worked at the US Institute of peace, and more important, something who has been intimately involved on a personal level with Afghanistan over nearly three decades. So I think it looks to me on the screen like. Minister static Xi has not been able to join us just yet so I may ask Minister Serabi to lead off the discussion if that would be okay with you minister I think we'll turn to you first and then when Minister static Xi comes we'll ask him to make his opening remarks. Okay, that's good. Thank you very much. Ambassador also. It's great to see you again. And good morning everyone. Thank you US IP to arranging such an event. And let me to thanks us IP for all the work and offer that they are giving for peace and especially woman inclusion for peace. It's very important they have worked for train a group of women for to make it make them ready for negotiation. So, two of us from that team or a member of this negotiation team. So, let me to start from my own experience Ambassador Orson. I'm the person that I have been the witness of four decades of decade of war and conflict in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, within this four decade I was the witness of so many event and the history will judge on that. So, during the communist regime. So, of course, from one side they called communist the other side jihadi group. Of course, it was the conflict going on and after that, during the jihadi period, the same same thing happened in Afghanistan and thousands of people kill. The jihadi group amongst their themselves. And the third era is the Taliban of course. It was every men and women especially women in Afghanistan can remember what was going to happen to that time, you are not allowed to go out and even for we were deprived of our basic rights. And of course, the new time or the new era that Taliban, there is the Republic, or the military of Republic and the other side Taliban for each of these area. These are the people of Afghanistan that they are, they have been killed. The bloodshed is going on. It's continuously going on. These are, these are Afghan. So, of course, this is the best time. And this is the moment that you want to do peace, but what sort of peace, what will be the price of peace. For any type of price. If I can tell you for, for example, share you with you within this 19 years that of course we have a lot of achievement. These achievement that we have, especially on if we can talk about women issue. Of course it's generally but if we can talk about women issue. We have presence and every field from political up to economic up to social and cultural part of the country. But this is not only our achievement. I mean the Afghan achievement. This is the achievement for both sides from international community, and also from the Afghan side. So it, it means that this is not a from one side achievement so the international community invested in Afghanistan for for democracy for good governance for the women's rights for the freedom of expression in these. These were the valuable topic that we have been stronger together. So, when I'm talking about peace and the women in Afghanistan and people of Afghanistan are talking about peace, it doesn't mean that for any price, we want peace. This price shouldn't demolish all our joint achievement. So, or it doesn't mean that we can go back to another war. So that's why it should be some some sort of compromise and compromise and from both sides from Taliban side from Afghanistan side because these are Afghan people that they are they they are killing or they they the bloodshed is from Afghan people. This is the best time that we have to come for some sort of same object and the same pattern to go for peace. So, fortunately, and we were lucky the negotiation team setup, but we wish that when the US started the negotiation with Taliban, if this negotiation negotiation team could be set up on that or set up on that time and we could go side by side. It would be much better than today. But anyway, it's also a good time. The, the negotiation team is getting prepared to for for their under the leadership of minister is starting say, do the aspect of our life. Even though we are doing our meeting, even face to face, not only virtually but face to face, we are conducting our meeting weekly meeting and getting prepared to go for negotiation hope that both team could come for some sort of compromise to sit together for for the same object to go for peace. Thank you. Thank you very much, Minister. I think that Minister of stand anxiety is arriving momentarily but unless it looks to my screen like he is not here so I think I'm going to ask Mr theater to make remarks and we'll bring in Minister of stand at the, at the end. Alex over to you please. Great, thanks. Thanks so much to you. And all of the participants it's a real honor and pleasure to be talking with all of you today. I want to make a couple of points and then come to the negotiations. The last one, which I think has been raised, but I think it's really critically important for people to remember is that this war has been going on for an enormously long time. It has been going on for 40 years as the minister said and this creates an incredible burden on the shoulder of all parties coming to the table. They all feel that they have legitimate grievances. And so they face an incredible dilemma, which is that they can't keep fighting, but they also can't give up on what they have been fighting for. It's also important to remember that inertia is an incredibly difficult force to overcome the path dependency of 40 years of conflict means that it's hard to get people out of that cycle. So the point that I wanted to make which Ambassador Olsen started with but I think it's incredibly important is the amount of courage it takes for those who are with us today to do what they are doing. As was mentioned, Minister Stan Exay has had multiple assassination attempts against him. And he bears the very real scars of that he's being asked not only to sit across from the table from those responsible, but also to trust them and to offer them a share of power. Mr. Surabi was the first female governor in Afghan history, not an easy job to undertake in the best of times, and she comes from the Shia Hazara minority, who have faced incredible discrimination in Afghan history, particularly at the hands of the Taliban so there is a huge amount of courage that's required to take these steps. I also think it's really important for us to avoid any false equivalency here in the discussion. Lots can rightly be said to criticize the Afghan government and they're squabbling political leaders, but the Taliban are not a popular liberation army, they are not a force that is popular with the vast majority of Afghans, and they have caused an enormous ongoing and destruction of innocence. And even though this peace process needs to go forward, it needs to go forward with an understanding, I think of all of those three things. So what is it that's required to actually help people break out of what seems to be an intractable conflict. I think there's a couple of things but the most important obviously is simply that both sides need to want peace, more than they want the collective. And so in coming to the table, they have to be clear about what their interests are, what their prospects are in a peace process, and whether they are being realistic in those assumptions. Afghanistan has achieved probably what many people call a herding stalemate, neither party is able to succeed militarily and keeping going like this is simply too hard for all sides. We're also facing rapidly shifting circumstances in Afghanistan, both because of the US withdrawal of troops is ongoing and the agreement signed between the US and the Taliban means that the US is slowly withdrawing its forces even if that is supposed to be conditional on peace. Pakistan, which has supported the Taliban through much of this conflict, they may want to get out of the endless loop of creating their own problems with the critical public health and economic crises that they face. And of course, other external forces that are changing the situation on the ground, like the pandemic. So hopefully all of those forces together will push the parties towards peace. But let me briefly say what I think they're going to some of the dilemmas they're going to face when they get to the table. The first one is the big question about starting big versus starting small. And what I mean by that is that they that they face some truly confounding questions about the future, the nature of the state, the role of Islam, women's rights. And there's something to be said for making sure that they tackle some of these big issues up front to make sure that that they are really going to create a piece that is sustainable. But at the same time, if you if you start with the hardest issues, then you may not get very far. And so figuring out a balance between those things finding some things to agree on upfront, but also making sure that the big issues are in the picture is important. And the second one is about speed. There's certainly a desire to get an agreement to get something done to move to a ceasefire to demonstrate the progress is being made. But the quicker that they make those steps, the less likely it is that they will really deal with some of the biggest challenges and may face issues in the future that that caused the process to unravel. And the second one is about this idea of specificity versus ambiguity. Sometimes it's really important for parties in the peace process to be very specific about what they want to outline the principles, and to make sure that those are baked into an initial agreement. But at the same time, it can be very important for some degree of ambiguity to exist so that parties can manage through the things that they can't quite agree on until they get to a better place. So they demonstrate that they can build trust that the ceasefire might work. And this is also going to be a balancing issue. And the final one, which I'll mention because it's so important is the is the question of having a very restricted and elite process versus something that creates sort of broad participation and popular support. And the reason that that's so important is that it can be very hard to make the sorts of compromises that are going to be demanded of the people sitting around the table. At the same time, if there isn't buy-in from the public about what they are agreeing to about what they are going to be compromising on, then it might be very difficult for them to make those agreements stick. And that's true for both sides of the Taliban have their foot soldiers in the field who might not be willing to see them compromise on the things that they've been fighting for. And as the minister has already outlined, there are millions of Afghans who have gained rights, gained education, and all of these things that are so fundamental and they're not going to see those sacrificed easily. So the last thing I'll say is that I think that there are really two big issues that are going to confront the parties when they sit down at the table. And those are the question of a ceasefire and an interim government. There has to be a ceasefire and a reduction of violence if progress is going to be made, but that's a very, very big compromise, particularly for the Taliban to be making. And at the same time, this government, even though it's unresolved to the president is at the moment just went through an election process and asking them to contemplate an interim government is going to be giving up a lot of power. The longer term issues and this is where I'll stop that are very important Ambassador Olson already raised them. The first one is this big question of is Afghanistan going to be a democracy, a republic that guarantees rights or is it going to be some form of a republic that guarantees power to a small group and particularly those like the Taliban. I would say however I'm sure we'll get into this I don't actually think this is really a binary argument there are a lot of options in between. The second one will be who has the power to interpret what is in the agreement who has the power to interpret the Constitution, who has the power to interpret what Islam me. It could be in many ways probably the biggest tug of war not only of the peace process but of the near term of Afghanistan's future. And the last question is the sustainability. Many, many peace agreements fail, and even if the parties are able to come to some sort of understanding on these issues. They're going to have to do it in a way that can be sustained that can be carried, and that all parties really believe they are willing to answer each of the question what is the price of peace, and that they have determined that they're willing to pay it. Thanks. Thanks. I believe minister static Xi has joined us. So minister we've already done the introductions and we'd welcome your remarks please. I'm first, extremely sorry for being late, and good evening to colleagues, Ambassador Olson, Alex, and everybody else who is in the, in the network, and good evening to my colleagues in Afghanistan. I'm very pleased to see colleagues after a long time, Ambassador Olson after a very long time. I am seeing you. I hope that all of you are safe from these corona pandemic. But we, we, we, every, every year we have the same situation in Afghanistan anyway. Thank you for this opportunity. I think this is a very good point that I hear Alex, the questions, they are difficult questions. But let me to start with a few remarks and then we can go to the discussion on the on the questions and others, if there is something that can be more focused. In relation to the peace process after so many years, I think Afghanistan has suffered 40 years. And in this 40 years we have seen nearly five major regime change, not the government changes. These regime changes every time they have left a legacy in Afghanistan. It is fresh in the memory of the people in Afghanistan. And, and every time it created divide among the people and the grievances. And I think when we, we get back on the negotiating table. Let's go into the negotiating table remembering all those years in all those crisis that the Afghan people has gone through. And there is a fear. People want a freedom from the fear, how we can achieve that freedom. And I think that is a very fundamental question for the people of Afghanistan the most important issue that they want and expect is the stability of the country, the stability of the constitutional system and the constitutional order, because we have seen in the absence of the constitutional order in the absence of the legitimacy and the lack of the stability. I think the people of Afghanistan every time suffered quite significantly, and the people don't want to return back to that kind of a situation. Let me give you a few figures in that in the past 19 years, if we calculate. We have 8,640 days. And we have 750,000 casualties, both from Taliban Afghan government that date in the injured soldiers and everybody else. If we calculate it and by day, every day in 19 years, we have 108 to 109 people killed or injured every day in Afghanistan. It means that we every day we had something that the whole world is experienced today, that the people are dying, the people are injuring the people are losing their loved ones. And I think with all the other consequences. This is why we have to come to the negotiation table with the good will with the political will that we have to achieve a common goal which is very simple. That simple goal is that we end the war, we achieve a sustainable peace in reach to stability. So many things come into that very common goal with where the Afghan people can be united for that. I think the success of for the negotiation I think there are many, many experience there are many lessons that were learned over many years in the different conflicts in the, and nearly 50 of those peace negotiation field. Some were successful, some were half successful in all those lessons give us an opportunity to learn from the mistake and we should not repeat the mistake that they haven't already experienced that. And I think those those lessons are extremely important for for our negotiating team for the Afghan for the Taliban. If there is really a good will and if we want to put the people of Afghanistan in their wishes and their desires in front and on the top of the list of the priority. I think we we can make the promise we can find a common common ground we can find the solution we know that there are differences we know that there are up and down. We know that there are as a very hard road ahead of us. And we know that there are so many different players in this in the conflict in Afghanistan, and each player may want to see the end of these these conflict in their own way. So I think how those differences can converge for a common interest, whether it is at the regional level, whether it is in the international level, and also at the national level. So all these these efforts will require a kind of a concert concerted efforts in order to find the way that how we can post the cooperation first the consensus. This is why we have spent a lot of time to build the consensus on the negotiating team on on creating a platform where the different political forces can have an opportunity to engage in a constructive way in the peace process. If they are not engaged if they don't feel they are not part of that process. I think it will be very difficult. And even if we reach to some kind of agreement then we will not be able to successful implement that. At the same time, our international partners will also have their, their role that how we should move forward for instance, Ambassador you remember when you were ambassador in the in Pakistan we were always discussing that we should start the negotiation. As a three party or three side of the conflict, the Afghan government, or the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Taliban, and also the United States, because that will provide an opportunity to have a clear kind of a ground for the implementation. But anyway, now we are in a different phase that the US and the Taliban has reached in agreement. Afghanistan in the whole world is facing with a different kind of a problem. Today we are facing with a corona we are facing with a war we are facing with a poverty. And at the same time, Ramazan is coming. This is an opportunity for all of us. And also for Taliban, that we we look what how the Afghan people what the Afghan people want. The first thing they want is that they want to be sure that during this period when the negotiations start. And there is an agreement between the US and the Taliban, when there is some level of reduction of violence, whether we can go ahead with further reduction of violence. I'm not saying that we made the jump to something, but we have to start with something that that is easier, we will move from easy issues to the difficult issues. We have to learn from all those different experience of global experience that the many, many experts has also shown in the most important issue is that we have to agree on the agenda framework. What are the agenda framework, what is the timeline, who should be participating in and facilitating. And I think those are some of the common ground that will help us in order to move forward. And we should also find when there are difficult issues that Alex mentioned, I think we can, we can work the different methods and mechanism how can we divide into groups can we have the third party views can we have the olamas of the both side that they can engage in they can find a solution. Backward, with the time where where the Afghan people during the King time during the Davut Khan time we had the constitution that the Taliban themselves review those countries, the constitutions and they had adopted their own constitution whether they were it was not in those. Finally, it was not approved, but there are clauses there are, there are some chapters, which is kind of the same chapters, and there are a lot of differences, but I think we can find start from the common ground build on that as a building blocks, and I hope that the Taliban also come with with the realistic approach in the realities Mrs Afghanistan is changing the world is changing with this changing word, we cannot adopt the same approach they adopted when they would empower during the Emirate time. So I will stop here, and maybe we can go to the discussion. Thank you very much, Minister for very comprehensive overview. And I think, first of all, for the audience. We urge you to start sending in your questions. You can use the comments feature. Please, please make them brief and and relevant. But I'm going to start with a few questions to begin with to get the discussion going. But in draft and negotiations begin soon. Everyone is alluded to the fact that there are a large number of issues to deal with. And it seems to me that the overarching issue one of the overarching issues is certainly this question of the Republic versus an Emirate. I wonder how Alex you referred to the possibility of there being potentially some middle room there. And obviously, Minister Serabi I think this has big implications for women's rights but I'd like to start, I'd like to ask all the panelists what they think about that particular question, starting with Minister static site. Thank you very much as Minister Serabi has also mentioned that the issue of the Republic. One is the issue of the symbolism. And the other is the issue of content in the, the, the, the, the, the, the different values that is in, in trying behind this Republic. I think people are interested. And that is that is the wishes of the Afghan people. There was an agreement through a lawyer Jirga, there was, there was a huge debate among the professional professional of the law, there were all of us, they have spent months in order to develop the Constitution that writes the Islamic values, the Muslim culture into this, this constitution into build a, a kind of a political system that is today recognized by the whole world. It is recognized by the Islamic world that is recognized by the East by the West by by the neighboring country by everybody. We have six Islamic neighboring countries they are all Islamic countries, and two of them are Islamic Republic. And the change of the name is bringing any benefit, or it is risking again Afghanistan in moving it to an isolation. So what whatever we are doing, we have to do something that is benefiting the people that is benefiting the country that is bring bringing more benefit to our nation. We should not go to the symbolism that which name we should choose. And at the same time, because of the Republic, it is has the same level of support inside Afghanistan outside Afghanistan in the region, beyond the region, and the Afghan people is united in some of the values that is enshrined behind the Republic. And that is their, their rights, the stability of the political system, the way that the leader can be chosen, the freedom that people will have their rights for how they should live and to work with each other. And I think the most important issue is that we should not bring some artificial dictatorship back to Afghanistan that will divide the people and not ending the violence, but we have to bring a situation where the people can exercise their rights. There is, there is a justice, and there is opportunity for equal equal access to the development. And I think that is that that that the opportunity is provided both to the women and men of Afghanistan to the youth. And I think that is how one thing I am saying in the negotiating team, they are coming from the different backgrounds they are coming from the different political backgrounds, but one thing when they are talking about the Republic when they are talking about the rights when are they talking about the, the, the rights they are enjoying today but not they were enjoying before that unite them together. Thank you. Thank you minister perhaps you could turn to Minister Surabi and you could in particular address some of the issues related to the concerns of women as regard their rights and this question of the emirate versus republic. Thank you very much Ambassador Olsen. So, when we are talking about the emirates and the Republic. So, first of all, I want to remind the people that if the emirates was an ideal regime, why the Taliban couldn't get the acknowledgement from from different other countries from the international community. So, it was on that time it was at the history. So we are not going backward, we have to go forward. This is the way that we have learned. So as a woman, I want to highlight both side, both the Republic and the emirates, the advantage and disadvantage of both regime on the Republic. I'm a citizen, but on the emirate. I'm not a citizen. I have to follow the things that the emirates is is call upon to us. So, and, and the Republic, I have the rights to, to nominate myself as a representative or as a leader, but on the emirate. I cannot do that. I can vote for my leader or for my representative. But in emirates, we have to be to obey, to obey what means that we have to be obey all the order that Amir or someone could give us. In the Republic, I have the freedom of expression, but in the emirates, I do not have that advantage to express my idea. So the human rights, the woman's rights, the rights of children. These are the major issue or valuable. These are the valuable issue that at the moment, the international community has a lot of treaties on that. But if we are a part of international community, how we can unite all these treaties that came out by United Nations. So, the people of Afghanistan now recognize what's emirate and what's what's Republic. So, especially for women, we cannot accept or we cannot, we are not on on that on that stage to go backward, even I have been in several provinces for this woman consensus that we had a program and and went to different provinces, even with the native civilian with Miss Holy, I have been to several together days to her and so many other provinces. So I have, I was the witness of these young girls, they were so talented, they were so committed to go forward to go ahead. They were, they were really very committed for for each step that they are taking for the for the betterment of their life for the betterment of the life of the next generation. So that's why this is a kind of obligation from the new generation that we cannot go backward anymore. Thank you, Minister, and I'll turn to Alex. Maybe you can help us to understand where this elusive middle ground might be between the two positions. Well, I love what Minister Serabi just said, because I think that what is really important and and Mr. Sanex I said this at the top is the parties have to get out of just the symbolism of this conversation, not to get trapped in in in labels or labels. And what they really need to do is talk about what it is that they want, what are the interests. What does it really represent to have an emirate or a republic or something that that combines them and so I would make two quick points first, the, the, the truth is that all constitutions have different facets that allow for different parties to be represented right so here in the United States we have Supreme Court judges who are appointed to a life tenure they are elected. We have an electoral college in Afghanistan as in every country there are some positions that are appointed that have power there are some that are elected. There are some that are appointed by those who are elected. And what's going to be important is for Afghans to figure out how to construct a government that brings everybody in so that they feel that they are represented in the government. They feel that they have some share of power and authority, but also that there is no one party in this negotiation that comes out believing that it will have absolute control or absolute power. But what the other two speakers are pointing to is a fear that what the Republic really represents is that the legitimacy of government is based on the will of the people, and that ultimately the Afghan people have the say that the Afghan people can hold their leaders accountable. And that principle needs to exist because all governments are likely to do things wrong, all governments are likely to go in a bad direction, and that principle that that there is accountability is critical and that's what so many fear about the idea of an emirate that you will have some person appointed who has no accountability, who has all the power, all of the authority, and has the ability to take rights away from people, and even if they take it away in a peace agreement, they might do it in a year or two or three. And I think that's what's so important to avoid. So get out of the labels, but get into what the real interests are, and how you construct something that brings everybody in and ties them into the system, instead of excluding people and making it so that only one group will have power and others won't won't trust. Thank you. Thank you, Alex. I think I'm going to ask just one more question from the chair, and then we'll open it up for Qs and A's please for the audience keep the questions flowing in. These strengths has been as has been alluded to in this discussion of the government side is the inclusiveness of the negotiating team bringing together a political different different group individuals representing different political ethnic and gender streams. There could eventually be a weakness as well as as a strength, if there are divisions within the team and then the team, as I understand it is eventually supposed to report to a Supreme Council for peace, which President Ghani has offered to Mr. Abdullah. So, I wonder if I and this is perhaps for the two team members, ministers Anakzai and ministers Robbie. How do you envision this negotiating team working and do you think it will be a coherent and capable team that will be able to address the challenges of representing the Republic. So Rob, is abuse want to speak first or I should speak. And after that I will comment on some parts. I think the team for negotiating team. It is an inclusive team. It is representing or reflecting the reality of Afghanistan. It is also a combination of the different generations of the country and they are most of them were the witness of the past 40 years what happened. And at the same time, there are the young one that they have seen the new, the new period, the new era that they have seen the development, the education and the changes that they were the witness. I think one of the most important issue that unite them when there is a discussion about the Republic or it is a discussion about the peace, they want to adjust peace, a peace for everybody, a peace that will contribute to the stability of the country and I think this is a large team, but the first thing was that they were given the authority to decide that how to organize themselves. So I think that was the first very important issue. The first discussion that we had among ourselves was that how to have our internal kind of a ruling procedure that was not imposed on us by somebody else. We discussed among ourselves, we agreed among ourselves, and we decided that this is the rule of procedure and we have, we develop our common vision for that. And at the same time it was in agreement that we have to consult with the wider Afghan communities and with the different groups and to have their views to have the consultation with them and to reflect their consultation and their willingness and their determination and that should be part of our preparedness for entering into a meaningful negotiation and to reflect the wish of the people. So I think that was a very good exercise, we organized ourselves in four working committee to focus on different issues, and then to convert them into a common something that could be discussed with a Taliban as an agenda points and a kind of framework for the discussion. So I think the most important issue regarding the council, I think that is also very much important that we have to have a relative consensus when we are talking about the most crucial issue for the future of the country. Everybody is afraid of have the fear of the future because, as I mentioned, we have five regime changes over the past 4042 years, and every time there was consequences and we are now facing with the legacy of all those, those, those changes in Afghanistan. So for that reason, everybody is very careful that we do not make a mistake, and we don't want to go backwards, we want to go forward, and that forward looking will help us to sit with our with with Taliban with in in a in a in a way that as Afghans, how we have to address the problem that we are facing all together, and we're all facing the same kind of a suffering. There is that clear guidance that is built as a discipline within the team. And at the same time, I think there is high, high console for peace and deconselation that is in the process of establishment and we do hope that Dr Abdullah will lead this, this, this console and I, and there is very fruitful discussion with him and with all the other leaders. One thing I have recognized myself, I have been in discussion with everyone of them. There is a common position in regarding to the peace. And I think that is very encouraging. Everyone is looking to the peace in this with the same vision with the same way that they, they, they should see the only thing they don't want to see is that there is a deal that nobody is knowing about that. And they suffer after something that is filled or the renewal of another cycle of conflict or another cycle of violence. So I think that is that is a very common understanding that how we should go to the peace. And at the same time, people don't want to loss the achievement that has been achieved by the by by the people. We don't want to lose that institutions, particularly the security institutions. That is, that is very firmly by every leader I have talked with them they were stressing on that that these institutions should be further improve they should be reform should be should take place that is fine but at the same time we have to preserve them we have to strengthen them. And the most important issue for the people that is our freedom, as not only political freedom, but our freedom, our economic freedom, how we can stand our own feet, how we had can establish a kind of a good relationship with all the, our neighboring countries. So I think those common issues will provide an opportunity for us to work in a in a very clear way, because the council will provide the the the macro level, guiding principles, the negotiating will be negotiating on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, not representing this one or that one, but as a whole representing the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. And they will do the negotiating it will be reporting back to the to the council and the council is composed of the government leadership and the political leadership. So I mean there is no division in that side. So I think we have established a kind of a mechanism, and actually the, the president has given a full authority to the negotiating team to the to the console that they have to do the work. Eventually, when there is there is a with each to any kind of a peace agreement that has to be ratified by the parliament or by the by the lawyer Jirga so the people of Afghanistan. Everybody is buying in into a kind of agreement that is implementable everybody is agreeing with that. And we can have more consensus on this. If I may to, to comment on that. Okay, I agree with the minister is tonic say, but on particular issue with the inclusion of women, I do have some concern, sorry. Minister is done exactly. The women group and different area from especially from several society and some other, even women that they were a part of the government. We were lobby for 30% of women to be a part of the part of a negotiation team. And when it comes, it was 25% we were happy and said that it's okay, but now we are 20%. So the, what's the problem, the problem is not a muster stomach say, or the government, the problem is the political party and the political figure. Basically, all the political party in the political figure when they nominate someone for the, for the negotiation team, they are nominating them, the main member, not women. I remember when Alice Wells had a meeting with chief executive, Dr Abdullah, two years ago when the this leadership council were going to set up. I was sharing the same concern and the same comment that they all the political figure, the leader of jihadi group and the leader leader of the tribe, and the political figure they are men. And even on that time on the leadership council, there was not any single women. So I raised my voice through the media and after that three women came the same with the leadership council and the negotiation team is still putting or nominating their male member colleague, and not the female. So this is one of the biggest concern. But anyway, we fall women that we are on the negotiation negotiation team. We, we are focusing and we are not only focusing about the women issue because we have to think a little bit broadly, and broadly, and to because every issue on the during negotiation will affect our life. For example, Republic that when I'm, I'm defending Republic because I have the freedom as a human being as a citizen, not as the one that can be like a second hand of of of citizen. And that's why we have a little bit concern but generally we are happy that, of course, that this team is representing every representative of every political party, different ethnic group and also the generation. Thank you Minister I think we'll now move to questions from the audience. We have, we have a series of them. The first one is actually from a representative of the media who wants to know about the role of India. We haven't really talked about the regional dimension here but of course, the regional, the countries of the region play an important role and whether Afghanistan will be at peace or not in the in the future. And within the question there's a presumption that somehow India has been sidelined in the current process I suppose because India has generally not been in favor of negotiations with the with the Taliban. So I wonder how the panelists would see a potential potential role for India and indeed for the region as a whole to have a constructive role in the Afghan peace process. I think that the role of the region is critically important for the stability and peace in Afghanistan and I think everybody should be involved in India is one of the countries that they have contributed a lot to the reconstruction of Afghanistan but at the same time in the broader equation in the in the in the region we have to create that balance. We had a series of discussion with regional countries and including with the US and others that we should have a kind of a platform of the regional support group like six plus three or six plus four. I think that is that is taking shape in India is one of the countries that will be one part of of that discussion and I think Afghanistan and every other regional countries they are recognizing and Minister Atmar is working very hopefully on this as a minister of foreign affairs to materialize at fair engagement and and engagement with all the countries in the region in particular via our immediate neighbors. Would anyone else like to comment. Yeah, I'll just say that I mean this is a perennial issue for Afghanistan going back centuries because of the great game and as Minister Stanix I said a famous six plus two process from decades ago. And the reality is that Afghanistan has the capacity to make peace with the support of his neighbors. If its neighbors are not supporting peace then probably the best and most honest efforts of the Afghan participants are not enough to overcome regional intervention. And so there really has to be a mutual understanding and trust among the key actors external to Afghanistan that they like, like the internal parties that they actually want to see peace, more than they think that they get some advantage, some advantage from their not being peace, and India's interests of course are deeply tied up with their relationship with Pakistan. And while I think it's far too dangerous and preposterous to suggest that India Pakistan peace is necessary for there does need to be an element of mutual understanding between India and Pakistan that that Afghanistan as a stable country ruled by Afghans is in both of their interests. I think I think that does point up something that's going to be needed in the, in the peace process at some point is some kind of way to address through some forum, the regional dimension of this conflict which as all of us know is is is hiding behind the scenes in many ways. Okay, so next question that the US is now committed to a partial withdrawal of forces and eventually to a full withdrawal of its forces. So does this constitute a loss of leverage for the Afghan government in terms of vits or the Republic for its negotiations with the Taliban, and related to that what is the assessment from the Afghan side of the military situation. So, perhaps I would ask Minister Stanekzai to lead off on on that if you're willing to take on that question sir. I think there is, we should not look to the drawdown of the forces of the timeline that is, that is for the withdrawal of the US forces. I think everybody of us we were knowing and we were hoping that at some point that the US forces will be leaving Afghanistan and Afghanistan should stand on its own feet. That is why we have to negotiate and reach to some kind of understanding and agree on the peace, so that there is the need for staying more foreign forces in Afghanistan that will be diminished. That is clear. But for us, the most important leverage is the legitimacy of the political system, the support of the Afghan people, the legitimacy of the recognition of the international community of our political system. And at the same time, this is, this is, this is something that we have to recognize that, that if there is, we're building more consensus, if the people of Afghanistan realize that we are at a stage that we can, we can. We're interfering from outside Afghanistan if there is enough effort so that the enter outside intervention is limited or it is reduced to a minimum level. And I think that will provide us with enough leverage that we we go to the, to the negotiating table, because there is, there is positive and negative side of it. And one of the issues that always Afghanistan government was accused that this government has no authority this government is too dependent this government has all the different kind of the perception. So, the Afghan government has really started the negotiation, the discussion with the US government regarding the, the reduction of the US forces in Afghanistan in the way that the Afghan security forces should be supporting and I think this is the true, the true side of it. Do we forget about the trade of the tourism, or we still have something in our mind that those global trades are those trades like pandemic like corner or like the trade of the tourism it cannot be addressed by one country. So collective, it should be others collectively in every country has a role, it is not only Afghanistan to, to sacrifice and be in the frontline so I mean if we want a collective security, we have to carefully architecture on conditional policies and on the basis of the progress that we are making in the peace process, and also looking to the timeline looking to, to all the different aspects of the difficulties in the new, the new situation that is emerging and globally both politically or militarily or politically. I think we, we recognize that and this is why, again, I'm calling on, on, on, on Taliban, that we have to realize that eventually Afghanistan has to be rolled by Afghan supported by Afghans and at the same time we have to address the problem of our own country. If you want to do that, if you want, for instance, they say that we are fighting for freedom. We want to fight for this, the freedom will come when we are together, when we are united, when we are ending this, this, this violence and I think if we are getting to a standing. I think we don't need any kind of a leverage. We want to have the leverage of Afghan to Afghan in this case engage to some kind of a understanding and to save the country, save the people, save the lives. Thank you. Another question from the audience unless, unless someone wants to add on to Minister Senegal's but another question from the audience for Minister Surabi. For Afghan women, what is non-negotiable? What are the red lines of Afghan women in the upcoming intra-Afghan negotiations? During negotiation, one thing which is very important and non-negotiable for Afghan women is the Republic. I raise the issue that what is the advantage of a Republic for Afghan women, because on the Republic we will be a citizen. We have the equal right like other citizens of Afghan society, like the other citizens. We have the right of education, we will have the right of political right, economic right, social right, and cultural rights. Of course, the basic rights of citizenship, this is something that we can be recognized as an equal citizen on the Republic side. This is something that we want to have it. Okay, thank you. We do have some questions piling up. We've got I think about three more minutes, but maybe if the panelists are kind enough, we might run over a few minutes to accommodate the extra questions. There is a question, several questions actually about security sector reform. That is to say the question in part of integrating the possible integration of the Taliban into the Afghan national defense and security forces. And whether that will be an objective of the negotiations, what are the considerations that would go into such a discussion? Would any of the panelists like to attempt to address that one? Alex? I think Minister Stanix I was trying to speak. Oh, I'm sorry. Minister, please. Yeah, on the security sector reform, I think already there are some reform taken place in the security sector and at the same time, the whole issue of reintegration and integration both in terms of the military personnel and others. There is a part and parcel of the discussion that we have to agree with the Taliban and how and where that should, that should happen. But one thing that we have to keep the Afghan security sector out of the politics and they should be serving the interests of the Afghan people and they should serve everybody equally. But at the same time, that is, that is something that we have to move to the reform in a, you know, in a step by step basis. There are areas where the Taliban fighters would, if it is agreed that they can be incorporated, for instance, in both the forces or somewhere in other areas where they can be based to provide that kind of a protection services. But at the same time, that is that is depending on on the discussion that we should have with the Taliban and agree with with the plan in that plan should should strengthen the Afghan security forces that should not make them that should not make the Afghan forces politicized and we should have a security forces, they have the trust of all Afghan in the Afghan, whether it is Taliban or other Afghans, they should feel secure when these with the security forces of Afghanistan because they will equally serve all Afghans. Add to that. If I can add to that. Can you hear me now. Yes, you're, you're, you're fun. Yeah, the combining an earlier question with that one I mean I think that the US and the NATO forces really need to make three commitments at this time that are going to be critical for the peace process. The first is to leave, right, if that's a key element and this is what Minister Stenix I has been talking about, they need to be prepared to leave the country if that's what the parties agree on, and the peace process go forward. At the same time, they have to be committed not to leave. And that means that if the peace process is not moving forward on they can't hasten their departure and undermine the security of the country. In that process. And the third which relates to this question of the security forces is they have to commit to continuing to support Afghanistan in in both security and economic terms. The good news that will come out of the peace process is that Afghanistan cannot afford its security forces, and they're going to have to become smaller. And that's been bringing everybody into them hopefully people will be decommissioned and there won't be fighting, because what we really need Afghanistan's young men and women to turn to is to growing Afghanistan's economy. And that commitment needs to be not only to allowing a gradual transition of the security forces to peacetime, but a real deep economic commitment that makes people coming off the battlefield makes people who don't have hope for the future to see that the international community is with them, and that the real opportunities don't lie and being in a militia, or in a police force or in some other gorilla army that pops up, but instead rely is in the future that they have economically as contributors to Afghanistan's economy and society. I think what I'm going to do now is wrap together a couple important questions we've gotten from media representatives. And I think they're, they're good, good questions to sort of end the session on a series of questions and I'm going to turn to each of the panelists for their assessments and maybe any concluding remarks I would like to make the question essentially is, you know how likely a prospect is that that negotiations with the Taliban will begin there was a perception that the negotiations were stuck over the prisoner issue there has been some movement on the prisoner issue so are the negotiations unstuck and of course, as we discussed the onset there's the question of COVID-19 and how that, how that pays plays into it. So first, first part of the question is, you know, for all of you, do you think the likelihood of serious intra-Afghan negotiations beginning is near, and then the second part of the question is, and this is sort of the conclusion that if these negotiations do begin, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the ability of the Republic to conclude an agreement with the Taliban? So why don't I, why don't I stop there and I'll turn first I think to to minister Stanekzai for his thoughts. Very much a very difficult question but the very right question and I think the first comment I will make is that we should not make precondition for everything to start or to conclude because that has caused us so much of lives in Afghanistan. Every time we make the precondition that this is done then we will do that if that is not done then we will not do it. I think the issue of the prisoner is moving on that will, that will, that will be implemented as you know that it is a large a big issue and I think this is why I insisted that if Afghan government in the US and Taliban had a three part side together the discussion that that process could have been much more accelerated and now I'm again stressing as soon as these intra-Afghan negotiations starts that process will be accelerated much more in a in a rapid way because that will be the mechanism the way that has to happen the largest take in everything else can be discussed face to face and and and that will be on this very quickly. On the other hand, when, whether the likelihood of the that we are optimistic or pessimistic, I think we are going with a good will, the good will that Afghanistan need peace Afghanistan want to not only Afghanistan but every person in Afghanistan and also the world in the region want Afghanistan to end this war. If we want to end this war, then I think this is not an option but this is something that we must have to do it. Whether today or tomorrow we must do it and for that reason I years the Taliban that they have to put those those kind of a symbolic excuses condition precondition we have to set face to face what we can do what they can do what the international community can do to end this war. And I think I'm optimistic, relatively optimistic but you don't know what will happen the next day. There are so many spoilers there are so many events happening around us, but I believe that the people of Afghanistan and everybody will respect the integration of the Afghan people they want the peace and we have to move to that. I think that I've been people are prepared to take their feet in their hand, but at the same time they are all responsibility for the international community that they should not rush us into a piece that into another cycle of violence. We have to go step by step to a piece that is sustainable, that is a piece that will benefit every Afghan, the whole region in the international community. We don't want to lose the investment that has been made, both in in the treasure and also in the in the blood and I think we have to preserve those building blocks that we can build more blocks on that and make Afghanistan a stable country. And at the same time, your troops, your soldiers, they can return back home with pride in the Taliban return home as also everybody can have a win-win situation. If we go to the loss loss situation, I think it will not benefit the people and I think we are reaching to a point where there is a whole political will to to get to that point. But once again, I'm also stressing the position of the Afghan government should not be weakened that will not benefit Afghans that will not benefit the international community that will not benefit even the Taliban, because we don't want to go to the kiosks that we once experienced not once but four times we experienced those kiosks. Thank you, Minister, Minister Surabi. I want to emphasize that for the help to start the negotiation. Of course, precondition is something that we shouldn't talk about the precondition that we have, we don't have any other choice for fighting. NF is NF. It's something that the people of Afghanistan, from both sides, they are tired of war from the bloodshed, because we have thousands of widows, we have thousands of orphans. So I think that's, that's NF. That's NF we have to go to sit together and at the same table to talk about the issue that we have it. About this republic, I'm optimistic about that, because why I am optimistic because this is the century of 21st century. It's not 90s. So we are talking from Kabul in Washington and maybe some other will join us from some other country through this virtual. So it is the mass media is playing a big role. And my friend from media, he or she asked about this question. I think media can play a big role on that. It's not 90s that we were, I myself, I was going from one country to other country, not, of course, I couldn't get to us, but in Europe to talk about the problem. Women, Afghan women had inside Afghanistan, but today is not the same. We can talk just by one tweet or through the Facebook and tweet, we can raise our voice. We can connect each other. So that's why it's, I'm very optimistic about that. And because it is the wish and the desire of the people, the people don't want to go back on the 90s. Thank you very much. Thank you minister. Alex, you got the last word. Thanks. Well, I'm, I'm, I'm very torn between the, the deep understanding and knowledge that all wars must end and it is clearly time for this one to add. And the profound obstacles that stand in the way of getting to a sustainable peace are also very real. When I first started researching peace in Afghanistan in 1991, one of the things that was happening where people were looking at how to use things like vaccination campaigns and humanitarian campaigns to get warring parties to talk to each other and to figure out how to find more in common about their future than, than they have dividing them. And we face a moment like that today. The ground is rapidly changing under everybody's feet. This pandemic will change geopolitics, it will change Afghanistan. And what I think we need to do, which is, I think what the great leaders who have been talking today here who will be leading these negotiations are really saying is that we have to seize this moment. There are opportunities and challenges, and we have to find the path to seize this moment to make sure that all of the parties really see that they have a future in Afghanistan. This is not defeat, peace does not mean defeat, peace can mean victory for everybody, and that it will not be easy, but that it is necessary. And that Afghanistan really cannot bear another era of regime change, another spasm of violence. And I don't think the world can either. We're not there by accident. We haven't been there by accident for the last 20 years. And we need to make sure collectively that the best interests of the Afghan people and that the world are aligned for the first time in a long, long time. And so that'll be hard, but I do think it's possible. Thank you, Alex. And thank you to all of the panelists for a rich discussion and I think one that was characterized by a great deal of passionate commitment by all of you so thank you for for your contributions to Afghanistan. Let me also thank the audience for tuning in today. And let me particularly thank the Afghan panelists who gave up their evening. In addition to joining us today. And finally, I would like to wish all those who celebrate Ramadan a Ramadan mubarak. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I will also assure. So Robbie said that the 25% of women will be there. And, and there is discussion ongoing and they are the most powerful woman in every time when they are talking they are the most talking and contributing during our internal debate so I think they are very powerful. I agree with you minister I think they may be small in numbers but powerful and impact. Yeah, we have a good supporter. Thank you. Thank you very much.